(FT3) From unknown source: Upcoming X zoom lenses with f/2.8 constant aperture.

FacebookShare


As you know Panasonic will announce two new X zooms in January. The 12-35mm and 35mm-100mm zooms. A “person” just sent me this (Thanks!):

don’t know if this is new but a UK Panasonic sales rep was demoing the GX1 locally –one of only two in the country. Of more interest to me though was a copy of the lens map he showed me. This clearly states 12-35 and 35-100 are both fixed f2.8 with power OIS. If this is final (and surely at this stage it is) then I reckon folk will be fairly pleased about the 35-100 at any rate though some had hoped for a bit faster with the 12-35.

That the lenses would have constant apertures is not a surprise. And also not that it would have f/2.8. For a lens that was pre announced that it would be “bright” this is really the minimum. But I was hoping for a faster aperture like the amazing Olympus lenses the 14-35mm f/2.0 and the 35-100mm f/2.0. But’ let’s wait. This is not a rumor coming from a very known trusted source.

Here are the links to the two amazing Olympus Four Thirds zooms:
Zuiko 14-35mm f/2.0 at Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay Zuiko 35-100mm f/2.0 at Amazon, Olympus US store, Adorama, B&H, eBay

FacebookShare
  • DonTom

    Depending on the price: they may get my money. I’d want to have a play with them first though, they aren’t lenses I’d buy online. The 12-35/2.8 would be a nice travel lens I think.

    • Tell you the truth…with all the great primes that have been released..I can get much smaller apertures, sharp photos and lenses that take very little space to take on the run. I know these two lenses will be pricey and big, especially the 35-100, (for MFT, in comparison to other choices)…so I don’t think they will be finding their way into my bag…although I see where they could be popular.
      I think I am going to pick up a GX1 body (to compliment my GF1) …so that I can have two fast primes hanging around my neck at the same time, and get larger, cleaner files, instead.
      …but the more lenses…the stronger the format. This is getting really great!
      Now, a nice, fast,(f/2.0), 100mm ish prime with IS, could find its way into my bag perhaps! :-)

      • DonTom

        Bob, I hear you. I have the 20/1.7 & the 45/1.8, as well as a kit 14-42. Want to go wider, but not slow. Usually when I want a WA, it is because I can’t back up enough to fit a building/ monument in a shot. So currently I use my kit zoom for that sort of framing e.g. at the Acropolis in Athens last Saturday. But it not fast enough for my wanders in the evening when the family are asleep. I think a 12-35/2.8 would be wide enough, fast enough and small enough to become my main lens. Probably relegate the 20/1.7 to a much smaller role (restaurants?), and the 45/1.8 would remain my main telephoto/portrait lens.

  • kesztió

    Anyway, neither 12–35 nor 35–100 could be even close to the price tag I‘d be able to afford it. I have no doubts the will be really high quality and IQ lenses, though.

    • mahler

      And who cares? How do you know the prices?

      • kesztió

        No chance to have them under 1000 EUR per piece – even the standard one would cost much more.

        • MJr

          I’m certain they won’t go beyond €999. Have you forgotten their reasoning behind the GX-1 ? They’re not breaking that barrier with cameras, and they won’t for lenses either. Which is exactly why it can’t and won’t be F2.

          • Martin

            The price is certainly an important factor, but there is another reason – more important one, actually: the size of the lenses. f/2 zooms simply wouldn’t match micro4/3 bodies. The word ‘micro’ is there for a reason.

            • Miroslav

              12-35mm is not much of a range. See the size of 12mm F2 and 25mm F1.4, put them together and you’d get roughly the size of 12-35 F2 zoom. Panasonic just didn’t want to compete with primes by making F2 zoom. Their logic is: if you want F2 aperture, buy a prime.

              • Martin

                No, that’s faulty logic. An f/2 zoom would have to be of a very complex design to be any good, and as a side-effect, it would be also big. If you knew something about optical design, you would know that designing an excellent fast prime is rather easier than designing a good fast zoom. Plus a well-corrected zoom (especially in WA range) is always significantly bigger than a quick calculation would indicate.

                • Esa Tuunanen

                  Didn’t you forget long flange back distance compared to sensor size (and focal lengths) of DSLR design causing extra complexity in wide angle lenses…
                  7-14mm rather major size and weight loss in transition from mirror mount to mirrorless as good example.
                  (though some of that comes from lousy optical undercorrecting of distortion)

                • Miroslav

                  m4/3 has seen many breakthroughs in lens size, so I don’t think 12-35mm F2 zoom would be too large. It would be smaller than 14-140mm, which is acceptable to me. Just look at some peoples’ comments couple of months ago how large a fast wide lens would be and see how small Olympus made it. And would anyone beleive we’d have pancake zoom? If they wanted to make it F2, they’d made small enough. They could start with 14-42 X design, adjust the range and apertures and if they got four times larger lens, nobody would complain. But some economic / marketing reasons prevailed. As for complexity, complex does not mean impossible and every the price of every complex design comes down with mass production.

                  • Martin

                    You obviously don’t know much about optical design. Have you seen the FT Zuiko 14-35mm f/2? Is it smaller than the Panasonic 14-140mm? No, it is significantly bigger, simply huge!
                    So, even though designing a significantly smaller 12-35mm f/2 for m43 is probably feasible, there is a strong chance that its optical qualities would be dreadful between f/2-f/2.8 and probably also elsewere.
                    So we would end up with a lens that 1) is still too big, 2) costs a fortune, 3) its ratio performance/price would be very very low.

                    • Miroslav

                      Compare the size of Olympus 14-42mm for FT and Panasonic 14-42mm X for mFT. Different flange distance, new technology, digital distortion correction – all things that contribute to much smaller size. If that’s not enough, compare the size of 25mm F1.4 for FT and mFT, compare the size of 9-18mm. Technology has moved since 2007, smaller lenses than FT are possible.

                    • Miroslav

                      Almost direct comparison:

                      FT 7-14mm F4 87 mm diameter, 120 mm length
                      FT 14-35mm F2 86 mm diameter, 123 mm length

                      mFT 7-14mm F4 70 mm diameter, 83 mm length
                      mFT 12-35mm F2 draw your own conclusion

                    • Miroslav

                      That’s “1) is still too big”.

                      “2) costs a fortune”

                      Panasonic has some overpriced m4/3 products ( GX1 for example ), while some are very competitively priced ( G3, 20mm F1.7 – at the moment, … ). You never know with them, except that they’ll give a high starting price.

                      “3) its ratio performance/price would be very very low.”

                      Does m4/3 7-14mm lens have a very very low performance/price ratio? I don’t thing so, although 9-18mm is a better bang for the buck :).

              • david

                12-35 is a 3x zoom. How much more of a range do you expect? 35-100 is also 3x of course, and so is something like the kit 14-42s.

                • Zorg

                  Maybe it’s just me, but I’d have been more interested in a non-constant x5 zoom (12-60/2.8-3.5 would be great, f/2.8-4 may suffice). Oh well, that’ll probably come sooner or later.

                • Miroslav

                  With “not much of a range” I didn’t ask for more range, but wanted to point out that m4/3 3x zoom should not be too large even if it starts at F2.

                  • Martin

                    ‘should not be too large’… Again, how do you know that? Answer: it is nothing but your unsubstantiated guess.

                    • Miroslav

                      See above: compare dimensions of existing lenses for m4/3 and other mounts.

              • MJr

                Put the price of a 12/2, a 25/2 and 35/2 together and observe how impossible it is that it could ever be F2. Both technically and what’s that other word.. affordability.. for ANYone. Sad but true :(

              • avds

                Panasonic only makes two fast primes which are almost similar and can’t make up for any zoom, fast or not.

              • “12-35mm is not much of a range.”

                We are talking about a 2.9X zoom, while 14-42 is 3X. Not too bad of a difference…

            • MJr

              Note that my comment is supported by the fact that it will NOT be F2.

  • Yeah, at a reasonable price so the diaphragm can be bought, but I want to aperture 2:)

  • kesztió

    BTW, don’t understand one thing.

    If the photo is not fake, how the front lens of the equally bright but much longer tele zoom could have roughly the same diameter as the standard zoom’s one?

    • Narretz

      They were just vdery early mockups; just an indicator of final design. They never worked. They are probably hollow inside. I think 2.8 is nice for a lens that is going to be only slightly larger than the original kitzoom. And it has Power OIS, something Olympus’ didnt have.

    • Nick

      That’s often the case – look at the front diameters of any brands respective 24-70/f2.8 and 70-200/f2.8 zooms

    • zf

      24-70 and 70-200 also have almost same diameter too.

    • That is to avoid vignetting at the wide angle setting. Ever wondered why the 7-14 has such a huge front element?

  • interesting when release?

  • Nick

    F2.8 is fast enough for me and means that a: I should be able to afford them, and b: they should fit in my camera bag :-)

    I’ve no interest in the presumable size and cost of f2 zooms…

  • Jan de Wit

    That 35-100 would be great, f2 would be even better. But not at the current price tag of the Olympus lenses. Thats just far to expensive for me.

  • Gabi

    I just hope that theses lenses will not have the same trouble as the already existing X-lenses…

  • Robbi

    2.8 is good, and it’s constant.
    As a bright zoom, that’s HG in the 43 Zuiko.
    2 of course is even better but that’s like reaching the SHG in 43 Zuiko.

    Let’s hope the price is reasonable though, that’s what concerns me most.

    • Frederic Hew

      None of the HG zooms has a constant aperture – only the SHG zooms do (2 x f2, 1xf4, 1xf2.8).

      In m43 terms this is SHG, assuming it is implemented well.

      • Not quite. The build quality will not be able to compete even with HG zooms. Those are already sealed.

        • Frederic Hew

          This is why I say this is SHG in m43 terms… forget 4:3 reflex build quality.

  • Nelson

    Hopefully they have OIS switch on the lens, and hopefully cheaper than 24-70 2.8 and 70-200 F4 IS from other competitor

  • Maley

    The 30-100 will never be f2.0. It would be freaking huge and not as tiny as the mock up.

  • 35-100/2 would be fantastic, but probably too heavy..
    But wait. If the zoom was designed to be 2.8 why they did not mentioned it while announcing the lens? I still hope for something like 2.5 or mayby 2.2. The faster, the better!

  • Do these lenses have also the zoom rocker?

    • Martin

      No, they have a zoom ring. Just look at the mockups.

    • It says power OIS up there in the rumor…..but…if they are X style lenses I guess they could have power zoom? I think manual ring zoom would be better though. I shoot stills no video and I own the new 45-175mm X lens…I love the lens because it is small (and will be better once it gets the IS firmware fix on Nov. 17th…), but one thing I find annoying is that the zoom ring, “by-wire” (which is a bit floaty…not definite like on a mechanical zoom) zooms “backwards” to all the other zooms I have ever used. So I hope that Panasonic keeps these two new lenses mechanical, its just more positive in your hand.

      • Martin

        Both zooming and focussing will most probably be ‘by wire’, as the lenses are supposed to be video-optimized. I myself don’t care (provided it works well).

      • JF

        I hope it is mechanical too, powered zooms suck !

        • The Panasonic 45-175mm X lens is so small I can live with it…but I would prefer a mechanical zoom ring that turned in the normal direction…it would be much more positive and not confusing.

  • Atle

    What is the point of constant aperture? Couldn’t one make a lens of similar cost and size that was for instance 2.4 to 2.8, and with similar quality at f2.8 at the wide end?

    • Frederic Hew

      It is very important for video – for being able to zoom in while maintaining a constant aperture.

      For stills I do not know if there is a benefit, other than the fact that the constant aperture zooms were flagship products designed to higher standards.

      • Miroslav

        “For stills I do not know if there is a benefit”

        12-35: you get a wide angle prime, normal and (almost) portrait prime in one lens.

        • Frederic Hew

          Sure but that does not require constant aperture.

          • MikeS

            A constant aperture zoom allows for shooting at the same exposure settings at different focal lengths without changing lenses.

            • Guest

              You can still set the aperture at f2.8 and keep it as “constant” all the way through.

            • Frederic Hew

              That’s a tautology. If I understand your post, you are saying a constant aperture zoom does what its definition suggests.

              I agree… OK, how does that benefit stills photography?

              • MikeS

                The benefit is that it provides more flexibility within a single lens; it isn’t a difficult concept.

                • dzv

                  > The benefit is that it provides more flexibility within a single lens; it isn’t a difficult concept.

                  Frederic and Atle are asking what benefit a constant aperture f2.8 zoom has over an f2.4-2.8 lens over the same zoom range. ie. the same max aperture at the long end, but a slightly larger aperture at the wide end. In this comparison, the constant aperture would not be more flexible, which still begs the question of why it would be more desirable. Assuming that they would be similar in size/weight/cost, I think we’d all prefer the f2.4-2.8. You’d have the extra speed for shooting at the wide end, and if you need to zoom in a video shoot, you can just lock the aperture at f2.8. Sounds better to me. I can only guess that it would be bigger or heavier or more costly (or a combination), but I have no idea if that’s the case.

                  • MikeS

                    > Assuming that they would be similar in size/weight/cost, I think we’d all prefer the f2.4-2.8.

                    I’m also sure that the majority of us would also prefer f/2.0-2.8 or f/2.0-2.4 over that, assuming minimal size/weight/cost increases. It’s a slippery slope, making these hypothetical lens designs.

                    In general, in situations that require specific limits to manual settings (e.g. shooting wide open, or at a particular shutter speed/ISO), it’s an advantage to not have to worry about a variable maximum aperture. That way, these settings won’t have to vary as much from shot to shot when the focal length changes.

                    • Atle

                      Of course, but 2-2.4 without question is bigger/more expensive, wouldn’t a 2.4-2.8 lens be more or less exactly the same as a constant f2.8 build-wise?

                    • Frederic Hew

                      @Atle

                      It would, more or less – zooms that with a brighter aperture at the wide end are easier to develop.

                      When I was shooting an SLR I had the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8. It was as good as the equivalent Nikkor lens (constant f2.8) and just a tad brighter at the wide end. It wasn’t bigger nor less flexible.

                      The one disadvantage was that when zooming in the aperture would change to f2.8 and would stay at f2.8 when zooming out to full wide again. Not such a problem when shooting stills, IMO (others may disagree.)

                      The only thing setting constant aperture zooms apart is that they are (or used to be) on a category of their own – designated as top end lenses therefore having better build and optics.

                • Frederic Hew

                  Actually now I am even more puzzled… how does constant aperture across the zoom range amount to flexibility?

                  Had you said bigger zoom range, or faster aperture I might have understood. Obviously, this is too difficult a concept for me.

                  • MikeS

                    Obviously.

                  • Jim

                    totaly agree my kit zoom is an f3.5-5.6 or if you want a fixed F5.6….. take it as you want!

                    • Frederic Hew

                      You see, infinite flexibility… and it’s not even constant aperture.

          • Mr. Reeee

            You can also zoom in and, presumably, not need to adjust exposure.

            The 12-35mm could be a great streetshooter lens.

            • Martin

              > You can also zoom in and, presumably, not need to adjust exposure.

              That would be only true for a uniformly lit scene, which is rarely the case. OK, in case of spot metering, it would be also close constant ;-)

            • Atle

              I still don’t get it, if I have a 4-5.6 lens and set it at 5.6 at the wide end, it stays at f5.6 all the time when i zoom. Having the ability to “lock” the aperture seems like a software-thing, not something you should “cripple” the maximum aperture at the wide end of the lens to achieve? I guess you can say that it ensures a sharp picture the whole way, but shouldn’t I be able to choose if i want f2.4 and a bit softer picture at the wide end? Because i am correct in my assumption that a 2.4 to 2.8-lens would be of similar construction as a constant 2.8-lens? (other things beeing kept as equal as possible?)

            • mclarenf3

              I often shoot at hockey rinks, and when I was using my ZD 50-200mm SWD I was often cursing how it would screw up the exposure when I was zooming in and out (I shoot in manual mode). I ended up having to keep it at 50 (to get the most light) and just cropping later.

              A constant aperture zoom is a very welcome idea.

  • Miroslav

    Disappointed 12-35 won’t start at F2. Not for me then, but since there are two fast wide primes, it’s not such a pity. People who need these zooms will get them for less money :).

  • I’ve also had information that they are both going to be f/2.8. This came via a Panasonic rep. to a UK dealer. They are going to be X design, which means they will be the size of the current non-X zooms.

    This is still pretty small for this type of lens. Faster than f/2.8 would mean a large heavy lens.

    • grzybu

      If 12-35 will be F/2.8 and not longer than 14-45 it will be a really interesting lens. Of course if wide open will be usable and great at f/4 ;)
      F/2.8 should let this lens to be smaller and maybe not crazy expensive, but I don’t think it will be less than $1000 anyway.

    • Cot5

      If the 35-100 2.8 is half as small as the canikon 70-200 2.8, i’d be happy already

  • Sergio

    I need F2 :(

  • I’m hoping the source is incorrect. “Fast” implies at lest f/2.8. If it isn’t f/2.8 it will probably be either a half stop (f/2.4) or full stop (f/2) below. I think it’s unlikely going to be a half or any other fraction of a stop. I’m still hoping the 12-35 will be f/2 and the tele f/2.8. Time will tell.

    This lens is the reason I haven’t bought a pana 14-45mm (older model). Neither of the 14-42 appeal to me. I wouldn’t buy a go-everywhere lens like this without OIS either (so no Olympus for me). At the moment all my lenses are primes! Oh wait, except for the 45-200 that I never use.

  • F2 too heavy for m4 / 3

  • Bu

    If the 12-35 is f2, has good IQ and doesn’t require a mortgage, it’ll be a permanent fixture on my camera!

  • You are right, 2.8 is for sure, being a fast lens. But regarding the smaller sensor size it should be 2.0 to be a professional lens for MFT. If it’s “only” 2.8 the price should be in the semi-professional range.

    • Andrew Howes

      Nonsense. The Oly 14-35mm is the only standard zoom lens anywhere that is F2, and it doesn’t have IS in the lens, and it isn’t made for as small of a camera. And it doesn’t get as wide. Every other standard fast lens out there is F2.8.

  • Naturally Panasonic will be sure to cover the body of the lens with every badge they can find, “HD” “X” “Super Bright” “12-35” “Panasonic” will be all over the body so you don’t forget from any angle ever.

    Dear Panasonic I bet there is an Olympus designer looking for work. HIRE THAT PERSON.

  • Yun

    Oh , that is my dream lenses

  • MJr

    F2.8 at a 200mm equivalent ? awesome !

    • Steve

      I wonder if they’ll start doing dedicated teleconverters too ?

  • These might be interesting lenses indeed but to be honest, I need just two additions to the primes I currently have got 14/17/20/25/45: µFT versions of my wonderful Zuiko 50-200 SWD 2.8-3.5 and the stellar 150 2.0.
    Having been spoiled by the fantastic Zuiko FT zooms it took me some time to adapt to shooting with primes but now that I succeeded in doing so I don’t want to go back to schlepping heavy zooms around. Apart from a fast focusing 50-200 that I will need for my dog action when the µFT camp has overcome the C-AF issues, thus allowing me to say farewell to my heavy FT gear (E-5 plus several Zuiko zooms and the ED 50 2.0).

    • Martin

      > …so I don’t want to go back to schlepping heavy zooms around.

      Some surprise for you: The new zooms won’t be as cumbersome as the HG Zuikos, in fact they will probably be comparable to your set of primes.

  • Frederic Hew

    I’d choose a 12-35 over a 14-35 any time, even if it’s one stop slower.

    • Mar

      Maybe you should try both before saying such things. :)

      • Frederic Hew

        Maybe I should.

        My reasoning is that if this lens is good at 12mm (and across the range), it would make my 11-22 redundant.

  • WT21

    Are all Panny lenses now going to be “X” lenses? I don’t want power zooms and rocker switches :(

    • Narretz

      Pana is confused as always with their naming … X supposedely stands for power zoom AND for very small lenses AND for normal high quality lenses. Doesn’t make any sense

      • sparedog

        it seems that naming at panasonic is not their strong point. thye just tack as many letters and fonts as possible onto their lenses and hope that eventually one will become a recognisable trade mark :(

  • Pedro B

    Yes! The perfect lens for use in video! Now waiting for the official announcement GH3

  • Mar

    These 2 lenses won’t be the same category as 14-35 or 35-100 f/2s.

    More like 16(17)-50(55)mm and 50-135.mm 2.8 lenses for aps-c which are ok, but nowere near as great as ZDs.

    Price should be no higher than 600-800$ and 800-1000$ respectively.

    • Martin

      > These 2 lenses won’t be the same category as 14-35 or 35-100 f/2s.

      Happily! I would never be willing to 1) carry, 2) pay for those beasts ;-)

      • Frederic Hew

        +1000

        The SHG zooms are over engineered.

      • Mar

        Yes, size is important for m43.
        However, those lenses if they are to be 2.8, which means 1-2 stops slower than primes should not be expensive at all and excellent already at f2.8

        I’m not sure how it’s going to work as m43 has nice, small short primes 43 never had and I question the purpose of 35-100 2.8 zoom as it’s not as simple as 35-100 2.0 stopped down one stop.

        It’s still going to be relatively big for m43 and with gh2 it won’t be much smaller than something like d5100/600d with 50-135mm 2.8

        • Martin

          > …and I question the purpose of 35-100 2.8 zoom as it’s not as simple as 35-100 2.0 stopped down one stop.

          Purpose :-? I myself HOPE that it works just like ’35-100 2.0 stopped down one stop’ :D OK, it propbably won’t match the corner-to-corner sharpness of the Zuiko, but close enough would be gould enough :)

          > It’s still going to be relatively big for m43 and with gh2 it won’t be much smaller than something like d5100/600d with 50-135mm 2.8

          The thing is that ‘much smaller’ is a highly individual notion. As for me, I believe that the m43 setup will be quite a bit smaller than a ‘d5100 with 50-135mm 2.8’. Also don’t forget that apart from the smaller FL, another (slight) size reduction is enabled thanks to the software correction of distortion.
          So IMO the size WILL make a difference.

          • Nelson

            Tell me that Canon 70-200mm F4 IS for $1300 is quite small….

            Sad part is there is no APS-C equivalent of 70-200mm, only canon 17-55mm F2.8 is close to 24-70 F2.8 and look at size of that thing

    • Mr. Reeee

      “These 2 lenses won’t be the same category as 14-35 or 35-100 f/2s.”

      Gee, I love speculation.

      We know next to nothing about these lenses, except for images of some early, sticker festooned mockups and heard conflicting rumors about aperture, controls and whatnot, yet some have managed to extrapolate all sorts of wonders and damnation from it all. ;-)

      Let’s just hope they’re high quality on the level of the best M4/3 lenses.

      @ Martin… do you have a kidney to spare? ;-)

      • “Gee, I love speculation.”

        I’m glad you’re saying that without any form of sarcasm attached. After all this IS a rumors site…

        • Mr. Reeee

          Sarcasm is an integral ingredient of everything I say here… ;-)

          Rumor and speculation are two very different things.

          To go from “rumor say that it may be f2.8” to …
          It’ll be too heavy to carry, have motorized zoom, cost one nut plus a kidney, blah, blah, blah…
          … are two WAY different things. ;-)

  • Yun

    Constant aperture F2.8 only perfect for APS-C based cameras .
    Therefore F2 is a must for MFT to excel .
    Anything above F2 will not deserve the X tag .

  • sg4032

    Thank God it’s not f2.0. That’s double weight and size.

  • Camajan

    Hopefully they will be sharp and without that hazy effect at f2.8…

  • bilgy_no1

    f/2.8 is a sign that the lenses will probably be affordable: in the 500-1000 price range ($/€). I sincerely hope that the 12-35 will be around the same quality and price as the excellent 14-54mm. I was shooting with it yesterday on my E-PL1, and every time I do that,I’m amazed by the extremely good sharpness and definition I get with it at such an affordable price.

    The pair of this lenses makes the whole system more serious than any recent camera release!

    • Martin

      > f/2.8 is a sign that the lenses will probably be affordable: in the 500-1000 price range ($/€)

      I’d like to share your optimism here 8-)

      > The pair of this lenses makes the whole system more serious than any recent camera release!

      That’s my take as well, provided the lenses are really good. Which is still far from given, btw..

  • Come on, Admin, would you really have bought those two Olympus lenses at $2,000+ each? Yes, they look sexy on paper and forum posters love to salivate over them. But do they sell in quantity? To me a $2,000 lens is no different from a unicorn — even if it existed, I’d never be able to get near one.

    Meanwhile, Panasonic as usual is getting beat up by forum posters for being pragmatic instead of catering to fantasy. But these will be very practical lenses — they’re direct M43 replacements for the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses that are the mainstay of most professional DSLR outfits.

    Panasonic, alone of the ILC makers, seems committed to making a legitimate replacement for a DSLR system, not just a supplementary system or a fashion accessory.

    • Well said, Ranger… and amen!

    • Vivek

      While I agree about the $2k Oly lenses being unicorns, I would beg to differ on these rumored f/2.8 zoomz as the “direct” replacements of the 24-70/2.8, etc zoomz for (presumably full frame?.

      Reason: image circle of the m43rds is tiny compared to the 135mm full frame. Hence, they ought to able to shrink the sizes. More innovative lens designs are called for, IMHO.

      • Martin

        Of course they are no replacement for f/2.8 zooms used with FF cameras. In performance, they should be compared to equivalent f/4 (or more theoretically precisely f/3.3-3.5) zooms used on APS-C cameras (when they exists). I hope that the new m43 zooms will be both better and smaller.

    • Mr. Reeee

      +10
      Panasonic seems to find a reasonable balance in terms of making (inevitable) compromises and producing very good quality lenses.

    • Esa Tuunanen

      > Panasonic, alone of the ILC makers, seems committed to making a legitimate replacement for a DSLR system, not just a supplementary system or a fashion accessory.
      So where are they hiding body with proper ergonomy and full direct controls?
      GH2 is just entry level design frosted with bullet-point engineering.

    • BB

      I think 12-35 f/2.8 in mFT ~= 24-70 f/4 IS in DSLR

      – similar DoF, 12mm @ f/2.8 vs 24 @ f/4
      – extra stop needed to compensate for the ISO performance of small sensor size (mFT @ ISO 800 @ f/2.8 vs DSLR @ ISO 1600 @ f/4)
      – Both has IS/VR/OIS
      – Pricing will be ~1000 USD, which is similiar to the Nikon or Canon f/4 IS/VS lenses

      I also don’t think f/2 is possible; so I am hoping it is something like f/2.4 fixed aperture

  • HMR

    I’m going to speculate that these will first be available as the kit lenses for GH3 and/or GF pro. Do you think I could get my pre-order in now????

    • mpgxsvcd

      These lenses will not be intended for a GF style camera. It is much more likely that a GH style camera will come out soon after their release.

      • Mr. Reeee

        Huh?
        Of course they’ll be usable on GF or EP bodies. Why wouldn’t they?

        • spam

          Of course they will, but the ergonomics might not be ideal on a GF3 or GX1. A bit too much lens and too little body. It’s called Sony Style.

  • MP Burke

    I think a constant f2.8 is about right for m43, faster than the current zooms, but not excessively large. The important thing for lenses like these, that will necessarily be more expensive and heavy than the zooms that are already available, is that performance is good at full aperture. There’s no point having f2 if you have to stop down to f4 to get reasonable performance. The two X lenses that are currently available look like they have been designed to be used with the lightweight cameras like the GF3 and GX1. The two faster lenses are probably going to be aimed at people using the GH cameras and the AG AF video cameras.
    Even if they don’t have a power zoom switch, I’d like them to continue using the internal zoom technology on the current 45-175mm X zoom. I will also be keen to learn if the new lenses are going to have dust and moisture sealing. If they don’t we will just have to assume we will never get sealed cameras either.

  • Should be $500-700 not more

    2.8 is fine, but I don’t know why people think the 12-35 has to be so expensive. It’s got to be cheaper than the Oly 14-54, 12-60, and Sigma 17-50 APSC F2.8, which are in the $500-800 range. They should be targeting a $500 price point.

    • Nick

      Why does it have to be cheaper than the oly 14-54 and sigma?

      • Steve Biro

        Yeah… The Oly 14-54 and 12-60 are not constant aperture lenses. I suspect these new Pannys, at a fixed f/2.8, would be more expensive. I would expect them to be at least the price of lenses like Panny’s own 7-14 and the 14-140… which is the say $800 at a minimum.

  • Aly

    I was a bit disappointed in the GX1. A 14-35 f2.8, assuming it’s not outrageously expensive, excites me a bit. Let’s see, so if they announce it in January, then we’ll be able to buy it … hmm.

  • Z

    Marketing wise they did the correct thing:
    These will make the best selling canon/nikon 24-70mm f2.8 (0.9kg) and 70-200mm f2.8 (1.5kg) seem *HUGE* in comparison. You loose some DOF in m43 version, and also loose oh over 1.5kg from the camera bag. These will hopefully also be considerably lower cost then the FF equivalent as there will be much less glass. Very smart.

  • Scott

    Seems like they are going after professionals now. I use the 14-35 2.0 and the 35-100 2.0 now. I would never want them to make that same mistake again. They are way too heavy and 2.8 is good enough.

    Most professionals are using 24-70 and 70-200 so this a no brainer

    • Jim

      I’ll get the F2.8s and swap you ;)

  • SLOtographer

    I’ll encourage Panasonic to go for it and build lenses faster than f2.8. With the smaller sensor size, one needs brighter lenses to compete with APSC. While I agree that the primes are great, there is a distribution of tastes and shooting styles. The fuller the system lens library is, the better it serves a diverse range of photographers.

  • I more than beat up on Panasonic, but to be fair, I never expected much faster than f/2.8. Ignoring price, look at the sizes of those two Olympus lenses. They’re ENORMOUS.

    Ergonomically, much less economically, a 1.6 kilo lens works well on a body like the E-5, but it would be stupid on something as small as the GF-1.

    • avds

      The 14-35 is pretty small for an extremely fast zoom, nothing enormous there. It’s just 12cm long and weighs ~900 grams, but it’s also weather proofed, designed for the original 4/3 flange distance, features almost over-engineered high-grade optical system worth $2300k, 9-leaf aperture and was designed in the age when the diabolical 14-42 X pancake zoom wasn’t even conceived…

      • Jim

        Both Oly F2 zoom lenses would be no problem for video, where you tend to setup more and nearly always use a tripod and plan your shots in advance.

        F2.8 will make a more “pocket” solution but I don’t think the 12-35 even at F2 would be too huge!

  • I am amazed by the amount of readers that already needs it or don’t when in fact we have only seen mock ups.

    I just need to remember how many called the 1.7/20 a death on birth before it came out…

  • Steve

    They are most definitely mockups – the pictures are the same as in this post from August:

    http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20110826_473211.html

    In that article it says they are mockups only with a release date somewhere in 2012.

    Depending on size of the lens, I would definitely be interested in both.

  • JF

    I take the two and throw the 14-140 out :D Ok it depends on the price…

  • mclarenf3

    I’m thrilled, the fact that it’s a constant f/2.8 is already better than the ZD 12-60mm and ZD 50-20mm that I was using (and very happy with) on my E-3. Pair that with the fact that these lenses aren’t going to dramatically increase the weight or size of my kit keeps me really happy.

    Now, lets just make sure they don’t break the bank!

  • Riki

    My ultimate tele zoom would be more like the 50-200, but say, 35-150 f2.8-3.2 and I’d happy pay 1000-1200ish price.
    while I’d love an f2, I’d rather they pushed the reach to 150, and I’d rather a sub $1500 price, and, of course, something that isn’t too comicly sized.

    I am also aware that the f4-5.6 teles are quite a bit smaller than a Full Frame 4-5.6, so expect to see a similar result for m43 fast teles.

    Having said they their is a good change they would get my money on a f2.8, the only thing that would stop me is if olympus announced a fast tele. While I like panay bodies, olympus glass is always nice and sharp, and their recent primes are very nicely made, so I have high expectations for when they get into their HG lenses.

    Riki

  • ljmac

    Do the people here asking for F2 realise how big and heavy they’d be? Olympus made the marketing mistake of trying to offset the 4/3rds sensor’s lower light gathering capability relative to FF by making F2 lenses that were almost as big and heavy as FF 2.8 lenses! Clearly the market for subframe systems want smaller and lighter cameras and lenses – I know I certainly do, and I’ll bet most of the readers asking for F2 do as well. The only way to achieve that is to match – not exceed – the brightest apertures available for other systems. And for zooms, that’s constant F2.8. Panny’s got the compromise right – and despite the fantasies you read in fora like this one, every lens design is a compromise.

    • BB

      Totally agree, it makes no point for panny to make a 12-35 f/2 zoom lens if it is as big and as heavy as the DSLR counterpart; I’d rather get a 5D + 24-70 f/2.8 for best IQ if weight/size is not a concern

      If I am picking up a GX1, portability will be my main objective, so having a smaller/lighter 12-35 f/2.8 OIS (provided the price is reasonable) makes much more senses for mFT owner

      I don’t think mFT can totally replace DSLR; you don’t sell your car when you got a bicycle, do you?

    • Esa Tuunanen

      For your claim of all subframe shooters wanting just lighter… there are nature and event (like sports with long distances) photographers who prefer crop sensors over full frame because it gives more reach from same bulk/weight of equipment.
      Heck, actually even Zuiko 90-250mm F2.8 zoom which is sure lot more flexible in use is similar in weight to Canon’s 500mm F4.
      So why would it be bad to have such fast high quality teles available?
      Neither are these tele Zuikos exceptionally pricy if you compare them to equivalent lenses of Canon/Nikon and people who really need such lenses never expect them to be cheap or feather light.

      Unlike wide angles tele lenses won’t get any size reductions from shorter flange back distance of mirrorless mount so instead of making all of them again it would be better to use that money for getting focal plane PDAF for achieving full compatibility with existing lenses. Nikon 1 with in sensor PDAF uses Aptina sensor so Olympus could probably get that tech from them. (just lets hope m4/3 mount spec allows also PDAF focusing in which lens is told directly where to move focus)

      But guess you’re just so darn obsessed in making sure that mirrorless stays consumer stuff instead of wide system capable to fully challenging also DSLRs.

      • ljmac

        Your needs are – I would say – fairly specialised, and perhaps best served by Oly’s present lenses: they’re about as optically perfect as you can get. I strongly suspect AF issues will be sorted out over time.

        I have to admit that whenever I see image samples from OLY SHGs I really wish I was strong enough to carry them – and rich enough to afford them. :-)

  • Edvaard Wu

    These things are going to be huge when compared to the cameras — which defeats the purpose of m43. I hope Panasonic introduces these quickly and get it out of their way so they can go where the real lens actions should be: fixies. I am looking for a faster 17mm. I have Panasonic camera, but my favourite shooting lens is the 17mm from Olympus. I only wish it were a 2.0 at least.

    • Ben

      A 17mm f/1.4 pancake from POanasonic would be awesome

    • I did not knew they had a purpose in life.

  • PepelePiuou

    Well,
    Maybe that’s what your “source” read on the lens..
    2.8 Ft = 0.85 Meters. (as graphed ON the lenses) .

  • Great that Panasonic and Micro 4/3rds will have an assortment of stellar glass. This is excellent news for still shooters. As for video, I think there’s still only one or two DSLRs that shoot 24p native (GH2, GH1), and the AF-100 camcorder. Sony has fewer lenses but at least there’s 24p native in the NEX-7 and VG20. Panasonic has nothing to match in these categories.

    ‘Doesn’t look like the company is looking at this niche. But perhaps M43 isn’t too marketable with video shooters after all. It looked promising in early 2011, but the AF-100 is already being widely sold on the used market, but not that cheaply since it was an expensive investment.

    I’ll stay with Pany and re-assess my commitment in Q2-2012 when rumors predict 5DM3.

  • Professzore

    At last…
    That’s what I was waiting for…

  • dj

    these look great!–cant wait to see them!

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What are Cookies?
A cookie is a small file of letters and numbers that is stored in a temporary location on your computer to allow our website to distinguish you from other users of the website. If you don't want to accept cookies, you'll still be able to browse the site and use it for research purposes. Most web browsers have cookies enabled, but at the bottom of this page you can see how to disable cookies. Please note that cookies can't harm your computer. We don't store personally identifiable information in the cookies, but we do use encrypted information gathered from them to help provide you with a good experience when you browse our website and also allow us to improve our site. You can watch a simple video from Google to find more information about cookies.

Cookies used by our Website
The 43rumors website, 43rumors.com, uses the following cookies for the collection of website usage statistics and to ensure that we can . These are anonymous and temporary. By using our website, you agree that we may place these types of cookies on your device.
Read how Google uses data when you use our partners' sites or apps: http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/partners/
Google Analytics Cookie Usage on Websites: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/cookie-usage?csw=1#cookiesSet Addthis cookies: http://www.addthis.com/privacy.
Disqus cookies: https://help.disqus.com/customer/portal/articles/466235-use-of-cookies.
Vimeo cookies: http://vimeo.com/privacy.
Youtube cookies: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/171780?hl=en-GB

Disabling/Enabling Cookies
You have the ability to accept or decline cookies by modifying the settings in your browser. Please note however that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our site. For information about how to disable cookies in your browser please visit the About Cookies website.

Close